Speakers and Events Committee

Finding 1: The Los Angeles County Code does not provide a clear framework for departments to develop vehicle fleet management policies and procedures and has sections that are too specific and would be more appropriate as part of department policies and procedures. Finding 2: Los Angeles County Department vehicle use policies and procedures are inconsistent across departments and create disparities for employee use of County vehicles. Finding 3: Department take-home vehicle policies and procedures vary in stringency, are difficult to reconcile with actual take-home vehicles on an ongoing basis, and put the County’s fixed assets at increased risk of abuse.

Finding 1: The Auditor-Controller’s Office does not verify the accuracy of departmental listings of employees who receive taxable income from County vehicle take-home privileges. Finding 2: The taxable income reported to the IRS by the County is incomplete and does not capture all staff with a County take-home vehicle. Finding 3: The County is not properly reporting taxable income for approximately 9 percent of Fire Department employees who have take-home vehicle privileges. Finding 4: A total of 18 employees in the Coroner’s Office had County take-home vehicles. However, the department did not report taxable income for any of these 18 employees.

Finding 1: County departments provide County vehicles for take-home use, but these departments do not fully evaluate need based on number of instances when vehicles are required to be used for business related functions. Finding 2: There is no County-wide, systematic evaluation of the justifications for County take-home vehicles assignments, leading to potential inconsistencies between departments. Finding 3: The Sheriff’s Department has not sufficiently reviewed the business need for take-home vehicles in every instance, and may be providing some staff with vehicles who do not consistently use have after-hours duties. FINDING 4: THE FIRE DEPARTMENT PROVIDES 27 COUNTY VEHICLES FOR TAKE-HOME USE WITHOUT PROPER DEPARTMENT APPROVAL. THE DEPARTMENT DOES NOT TRACK THE USE OF THESE VEHICLES AFTER HOURS FOR EMERGENCY BUSINESS REQUIREMENTS, AND THUS CANNOT BE SURE THAT ALL TAKE HOME VEHICLES ARE NECESSARY. FINDING 5: THERE IS NO COUNTY-WIDE SYSTEMATIC EVALUATION OF COUNTY TAKE-HOME VEHICLES TO ENSURE JUSTIFICATION IS CONSISTENT AND WARRANTED, BASED ON BUSINESS NEED. FINDING 6: The County does not systematically analyze the costs related to staff using County vehicles for take-home purposes compared to the cost of using personal vehicles. With a review of business need for vehicles, the County can determine the justification in business need and costs to providing County vehicles or reimbursing staff for using personal vehicles. - 147 - 2007-2008 Los Angeles County Civil Grand Jury Final Report

Finding 1: The County has no internal controls in place to ensure County departments do not purchase vehicles that have features that exceed those required for routine County business. Finding 2: There are dozens of vehicles that appear to have features that exceed need based on intended use, resulting in unnecessary costs for the County. Finding 3: Some departments have vehicles that are not expensive, other departments have purchased luxury vehicles for the Department Director or other senior managers. Without clear direction from the Board of Supervisors, departments do not have any clear incentives to purchase vehicles that minimize cost. Finding 4: There are discrepancies between the databases that individual departments, the Internal Services Department and the Auditor-Controller maintain.

The Hertzberg - Davis Forensic Science Center was touted to the public as a multi-jurisdictional joint laboratory venture with a common focus. Early on in the planning stages, experts concluded that financial support would not be easy to get if the Los Angeles Police Department and the Los Angeles Sheriff’s Department each focused only on their separate requirements. The project would gain popularity if both agencies would come together as a single unit under one roof. Consolidation was the best plan for the most efficient, effective and economic model in an expanded venue. Ten years later, consolidation is not in place and both agencies are content to do business as usual, separate and distinctly apart. Our investigation reveals no significant changes in the established separatist policy. This new facility is sensibly styled with a harmonious design There are some oversights that should be fixed such as the decontamination showers in hallways throughout the building, which have no drains to capture toxic runoff. These indoor environmental hazards are an unnecessary liability, especially in a science laboratory setting that demands a clean and safe workplace. There is no apparent plan to recruit and retain additional criminalists to augment the scientific and technical staff that face increasing caseloads and backlogs in processing evidence, DNA samples and forensic material. FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS Finding 1 There is a substantial deviation between the original proposal and rationale used to justify the building of the new facility and what was actually realized in the way of cooperation between the LASD and the LAPD. Recommendation 1 The City Controller and the County Audit-Controller should initiate an audit to quantify the promised savings to the taxpayer through the economy and efficiency brought about by unification of their respective labs. The audit should be 268 2007-2008 Los Angeles County Civil Grand Jury Final Report completed and the recommendations implemented by 2010. Finding 2 There were rented refrigerated trailers used for the storage of forensic evidence to be processed by the crime lab that are parked at the loading dock of the Scientific Investigation Division facility at Erwin C. Piper Technical Center, despite the fact that there is abundant empty floor space inside the facility. Recommendation 2 The Los Angeles City Department of General Services should request that the refrigerated storage area currently in use by the Scientific Investigation Division of the Los Angeles Police Department be reconfigured or expanded in the empty area presently assigned to the Scientific Investigation Division at that site, so that the leases of refrigerated trailers can be terminated, and the City of Los Angeles be no longer obligated to rent them or use valuable loading dock space at the Erwin C. Piper Technical Building. Finding 3 The Property Division of the Los Angeles Police Department has a policy of retaining hundreds of thousands of items of evidence for 65 years. Recommendation 3 The Los Angeles Police Department should review their policy of retaining evidence in the property division for sixty-five years, and develop a policy of disposing of all items not needed for current trials or those in which a retrial could be ordered following a post-conviction appeal by a defendant. Finding 4 The laboratory areas have emergency decontamination showers in the hall. We noted that there were no drains in the floor. It was explained that the flooded floor was easier to maintain than drains. Recommendation 4 The Joint Powers Authority of the Hertzberg-Davis Forensic Science Center should review why there are no floor drains beneath the decontamination showers located in the hallways of the new crime laboratory This may allow run-off to travel into the various rooms of the building under the doors, some of which do not have adequate 269 2007-2008 Los Angeles County Civil Grand Jury Final Report thresholds or weather-stripping at their base The governing authority should direct that appropriate refitting, if any, be done to redirect, capture and dispose of the runoff. Finding 5 In the vehicle inspection areas, the doors do not adequately block outside light, permitting too much ambient light to be present for investigations requiring alternate light sources to reveal latent evidence. Recommendation 5 The Joint Powers Authority of the Hertzberg-Davis Forensic Science Center should review why there are light leaks in the vehicle inspection areas that lessen the effectiveness of alternative light sources, the use of which is often necessary to discover evidence that is difficult to detect under traditional light sources. Appropriate refitting, if any, be should be done to eliminate the light leaks. Finding 6 There are only two allocated intern positions for graduate students to obtain work experience in the LAPD and LASD crime laboratories. Recommendation 6 The Los Angeles Sheriff’s Department and the Los Angeles Police Department should hire additional interns from the California State University Los Angeles Department of Criminalistics, or other students in this same specialization at other universities. Finding 7 One of the considerations for the consolidation of the LAPD and LASD crime labs was to add more personnel in expanded quarters to alleviate the backlog of evidence testing, including DNA testing. A recommendation by a medical expert on sexual abuse suggested that analysis of DNA be prioritized in cases of rape, particularly in cases of rape by a perpetrator unknown to the victim. Recommendation 7 It is recommended that the Los Angeles Police Department and the Los Angeles Sheriff’s Department should accelerate the analysis of stored DNA samples in rape cases where the assailant is unknown to the victim. 270 2007-2008 Los Angeles County Civil Grand Jury Final Report EMERGENCY PREPAREDNESS: THE PUBLIC INFORMATION PART 2007-2008 Los Angeles County Civil Grand Jury Investigative Committee John Gleiter, Chair Octavio “Toby” Chavez Richard Niederberg Dolores Rillos Arnie L. Spears 271 2007-2008 Los Angeles County Civil Grand Jury Final Report 272 2007-2008 Los Angeles County Civil Grand Jury Final Report EMERGENCY PREPAREDNESS: THE PUBLIC INFORMATION PART INTRODUCTION The past two Civil Grand Juries have commented upon the County Office of Emergency Management’s (OEM) efforts in the area of emergency communications to the general public, particularly regarding how to prepare and then to endure an emergency. This year’s report will take a different tack, having found that emergency preparedness literature, tapes, films, websites, radio spots and other media are numerous, and adequate for the general public. The situation is analogous to that of the horse being led to water, but refusing to drink. Similarly, the public must inform itself with all the information available, absorb it, then act upon it. The county’s Emergency Operations Center (EOC) is plugged into the State of California’s Emergency Alert System, utilizing local TV and radio. The state, county and California Highway Patrol (CHP) all have websites which provide emergency information, including road closures and evacuation routes. A reverse 911 notification system is not yet available in Los Angeles County. Under federal statutes, the Red Cross is the lead agency for providing short-term shelter. This is meritorious for those individuals who can reach these shelters if and when they are set up; however, this is not the topic of the following report.

The Los Angeles County Sheriffs Department (LASD) manages the largest detention system in the county. Responsibilities include providing security services in all Los Angeles County courthouses, performing policing duties for all unincorporated areas in the county, and performing policing duties under contract with individual incorporated cities. The Los Angeles Police Department (LAPD) has many detention facilities throughout the county. Most of the detention centers are short term holding areas since most detainees are transported to either Men’s Central Jail or Twin Towers after fingerprinting and processing. In addition, many cities have their own police departments that, in most instances, serve as holding facilities as well. Most detainees are quickly transferred to larger long term jails. The 2007-2008 Civil Grand jury is pleased with the overall condition of the jails and holding facilities. Most meet or exceed standards required by the State of California. In spite of the inordinate number of detainees in the county processed daily, the facilities are well run and well managed. - 318 - 2007-2008 Los Angeles County Civil Grand Jury Final Report 2007-2008 CIVIL GRAND JURY ADULT DETENTION FACILITIES INSPECTIONS (Listed alphabetically by facility name) PD = Police Department LASD = Los Angeles Sheriff Department Facility Name Operat Condition Comments ed by 77th Street Division LAPD PD Satisfactory Needs paint. Alhambra PD PD Satisfactory Clean and well run. Alhambra Superior Court Satisfactory Generally good condition. Minor graffiti and peeling paint. Antelope Valley LASD Satisfactory. No padding on sobering cell. Arcadia PD PD Satisfactory Clean. Avalon LACSD LASD Satisfactory Inmates sent back to Mainland for processing. Azusa PD PD Satisfactory Clean and well run. Baldwin Park PD PD Satisfactory Needs padding in sobering cells. Bell Gardens PD PD No sprinkler system in jail area. No emergency evacuation plan. Bell PD PD Satisfactory Paint/repair of sobering cell. No evacuation plan in jail area. Old facility. Bellflower Court LASD Satisfactory Generally good condition. Minor graffiti and peeling paint. Beverly Hills PD PD Satisfactory Minor repairs being addressed. Beverly Hills Court LASD Satisfactory Clean and well run. Burbank PD PD Satisfactory Well run facility. Burbank Superior Court LASD Satisfactory Very clean. Carson LASD LASD Satisfactory Very clean and well run. Central Area LAPD PD Unsatisfactory Staph-infected facility. Personnel need to be better informed on administrative procedures. Central Arraignment Courts LASD Satisfactory Excellent sally port. Elevator light fixtures need repair. Needs paint and graffiti - 319 - 2007-2008 Los Angeles County Civil Grand Jury Final Report removal. Century Regional l Detention Center, LASD Satisfactory Clean and well run facility in spite of Lynwood overcrowding. Need better lighting in food storage area. Compton Courthouse LASD Unsatisfactory More deputies are needed for better security. Too much graffiti in cells. Overcrowded. Covina PD PD Satisfactory In good condition. Crescenta Valley LASD Unsatisfactory Dim lighting. Needs padding in sobering area. Sally port area not secure. Criminal Courts LASD Satisfactory Could use more computers for more efficiency and production. Culver City PD PD Satisfactory Well run facility. Devonshire PD PD Satisfactory Clean, well run facility. Downey Courts LASD Satisfactory. Food carts should be clutter free, clean at all times. Jail area needs to be kept clean. Downey PD PD Satisfactory Well maintained. East Los Angeles Courts LASD Satisfactory Clean, well run facility. East Los Angeles Sheriff LASD Satisfactory Clean. El Monte Courts LASD Satisfactory Well maintained. El Monte PD PD Satisfactory Clean and well run. Foothill PD LAPD Unsatisfactory Sobering cells are double-decked, thus unsafe. Dim lighting. Fenced area serves as a sally port. Gardena PD PD Satisfactory Old facility in need of repair but clean and well run. Need air conditioning Glendale PD PD Satisfactory Well run facility. Glendale Superior Court LASD Unsatisfactory Facility needs paint and repair of earthquake damage. Unsafe sally port needs to be made secure. Juvenile area unsecured. Plastic trash bags hanging in cells. Glendora PD PD Satisfactory Well run facility. Harbor Area PD LAPD Satisfactory Clean facility. Hawthorne PD PD Satisfactory Very clean and well run. - 320 - 2007-2008 Los Angeles County Civil Grand Jury Final Report Hermosa Beach PD PD Satisfactory Old facility very clean. Hollywood PD LAPD Satisfactory New floors needed. Huntington Park PD PD Satisfactory Well kept facility. Fire extinguishers need to be relocated Industry LASD Satisfactory Generally clean. In process of refurbishing station. Jail is last to be done. Inglewood PD PD Satisfactory Well maintained. Irwindale PD PD Satisfactory Facility needs upgrading. La Verne PD PD Satisfactory Very clean facility. LAC/USC Jail Ward LASD Satisfactory Facility in good condition. Moving to a new location. Lakewood LASD Unsatisfactory Manuals need to be updated. Lower level needs to be refurbished. No sally port. LAX Courthouse LASD Satisfactory Very clean facility. Lennox LASD LASD Satisfactory Needs air conditioning. No sally port for unloading and loading of inmates. Excellent system for maintaining policy and procedures manuals. Lomita LASD LASD Satisfactory Better system of control over excess food. Long Beach PD PD Satisfactory Valve to control water pressure and flow installed to prevent flooding in cells and Long Beach PD (continued) showers. Long Beach Superior Courts LASD Unsatisfactory Not a well kept facility. In need of paint and graffiti removal. Lost Hills LASD Satisfactory Clean and well run. Manhattan Beach PD PD Satisfactory Very clean. Maywood PD PD Satisfactory Facility is currently being updated. Men’s LASD Unsatisfactory Facility should be shut down. Dirty and in disrepair. Central Jail Monrovia PD PD Satisfactory Clean facility. In need of padding in sobering cell. Mira Loma Detention Fed / Satisfactory Well run facility. LASD Montebello PD PD Satisfactory Very good condition. - 321 - 2007-2008 Los Angeles County Civil Grand Jury Final Report Monterey Park PD PD Satisfactory Very clean. No infractions found. North County Correction Center LASD Satisfactory Maximum security facility. Provides laundry for entire jail system. North Hollywood LAPD LAPD Satisfactory Well run facility Northeast LAPD LAPD Unsatisfactory Needs to be inspected for contamination caused by prior tenant. Possible cause of high percentage of staff illness. Norwalk Courts LASD Satisfactory Efficiently run. Norwalk LASD LASD Satisfactory Well run. Pacific Area LAPD LAPD Satisfactory Very clean. Well organized procedure manual system. Pacoima LAPD/Foothill Community) LAPD Satisfactory Exceptionally clean facility. Palmdale LASD LASD Satisfactory Very clean and well run. Palos Verdes Estates PD PD Satisfactory Very clean facility. No sobering cell. Parker Center LAPD LAPD Satisfactory Well run facility. Building being replaced due to earthquake damage. Staff well informed on procedures. Sally port should be used as an example for other LAPD facilities. Pasadena PD PD Satisfactory New mattresses, proper inspection of fire extinguisher. Fire suppression plan needs to be revamped. Pasadena Superior Court LASD Unsatisfactory Building has earthquake damage. Visible cracks in walls. Elevators aren’t working properly. Not enough holding cells to contain detainees awaiting hearings. Pico Rivera LASD LASD Satisfactory Needs paint and graffiti removal. Pomona Courts North LASD Satisfactory Clean and well run. Pomona Courts South LASD Satisfactory Clean and well run. Pomona PD PD Satisfactory Good condition. Staff needs to be better informed on CSA reports. Rampart Area LAPD LAPD Satisfactory Fire extinguishers need to be inspected, refilled and date stamped. Redondo Beach PD PD Satisfactory Old, but very clean facility. New flooring and metal storage shelves for dry food storage needed San Dimas LASD LASD Satisfactory More staff needed San Fernando PD PD Satisfactory Clean and well run facility San Fernando Superior Court LASD Satisfactory Overcrowded at time of inspection. - 322 - 2007-2008 Los Angeles County Civil Grand Jury Final Report San Gabriel PD PD Satisfactory No fire suppression plan. Some graffiti. San Marino PD PD Satisfactory Manuals need upgrading Santa Clarita Courts LASD Satisfactory Well run facility Santa Clarita LASD LASD Unsatisfactory. In general disrepair and dirty. Santa Monica PD PD Satisfactory Clean facility. Sierra Madre PD PD Satisfactory Well run facility. South Gate Courts LASD Satisfactory In need of paint, new lighting and graffiti removal. South Gate PD PD Satisfactory Needs to be painted. Graffiti on walls and floors. South Pasadena PD PD Satisfactory Clean facility. Southwest Area LAPD LAPD Satisfactory Clean facility. Food handling is exemplary. Temple City LASD LASD Satisfactory Needs more staff and better lighting. Torrance PD PD Satisfactory Well run facility. Torrance Superior Court LASD Satisfactory Holding cells need to be painted. Twin Towers (one) LASD LASD Satisfactory Generally well run facility. Well staffed medical facility. However, medication not being properly monitored. Refrigeration out of compliance. Food storage area excellent. Twin Towers (two) LASD LASD Satisfactory Area clean. Medication carts clean. Inmates need to be escorted to clinic in a timely manner. More personnel needed. Van Nuys Courts LASD Satisfactory Clean facility. Staff needs to be informed of location of procedure manuals. Vans Nuys LAPD LAPD Satisfactory Well run facility. Vernon PD PD Satisfactory Clean and well run facility. Walnut LASD LASD Satisfactory Facility in very good condition. West Covina PD PD Satisfactory Needs paint & graffiti removal. West Hollywood LASD LASD Satisfactory Needs more staff. West LA LAPD LAPD Satisfactory Well run. In need of more staff. West Valley LASD LASD Satisfactory Clean and well maintained. Whittier Courts LASD Satisfactory Vent covers needed. Whittier PD PD Satisfactory Clean facility. Wilshire Area LAPD LAPD Satisfactory Well organized facility. Knowledgeable staff. - 323 - 2007-2008 Los Angeles County Civil Grand Jury Final Report 2007-2008 CIVIL GRAND JURY JUVENILE DETENTION PROBATION FACILITIES INSPECTIONS (Listed alphabetically by facility name) Facility Name Condition Comments Camp Afferbaugh Satisfactory Refrigerator/freezer has been broken for three months. An outdoor freezer is currently being used. Need more outdoor lighting. Maintenance department needs to be decentralized. Facility lacks automatic sprinkler system since it was not required at the time the building was constructed. There is a need for more intramural/after school programs. Current manuals dated 1990 and are under revision. Basketball court needs to be resurfaced. Fire extinguisher certification is not current. Camp Dorothy Kirby M.H. Satisfactory Well run special needs facility. Male and female. No automatic sprinkler (Treatment Facility) system throughout facility. Laundry room floors need repair. Kitchen clean and orderly. Impressive educational operation. Camp Gonzales Satisfactory Cracks in walk-in refrigerator & freezer floors needs major repair, freezer door needs repair, rusting metal window frames in dining hall, peeling paint on overhang in some buildings. Special handling building is mostly unused & empty. Camp Holton Satisfactory Well run. Needs paint in dormitories - 324 - 2007-2008 Los Angeles County Civil Grand Jury Final Report Camp Kilpatrick Satisfactory Food preparation services shared with Camp Miller. Gym has been red tagged since 1993. Needs to be replaced. Special unit ward needs refurbishing. Needs paint and graffiti removal. Staff must keep a log of times oxygen administered in order to monitor capacity. Mold observed in restrooms and shower area. Laundry facility needs to be updated or contracted out. Transportation of youth to medical facilities requires an inordinate amount of staff time. Camp Mendenhall Satisfactory Gym door needs repair or replacement. Dorm fire extinguishers certification must be updated. Nursing services should be 16 hours per day. Emergency generator needs to be replaced. Student computers need to be upgraded. Staff resides on site. Camp Miller Satisfactory Food preparation facilities shared with Kilpatrick. Droppings observed in food storage areas. Need better laundry facilities and fire sprinkler system in office area. Camp Munz Satisfactory. Well run facility. Need to replace very old emergency generator. Camp Paige Satisfactory Excellent conditions in kitchen and dining area. Forestry camp used on a limited basis for older detainees (18 years). As a safety precaution, a fence should be built on hillside next to the dining area above the recreation field. Camp Rocky Unsatisfactory Need fire extinguishers in dormitories. Increase staffing related to high risk and safety of everyone. Ensure that all food that is prepared be dated and stamped. 24/7 nursing staff in 12 hour shifts. Remove - 325 - 2007-2008 Los Angeles County Civil Grand Jury Final Report cleaning solution from outside to a locked safe area. Needs paint. Camp Routh Satisfactory Fire camp serving males 17 years old and older. Well run minimum security facility. Camp Scott (female) Satisfactory Clean and well run. Minor graffiti. Camp Scudder (female) Satisfactory Clean and well run. Track in dire need of repair. Need improved laundry equipment. Mental Health professionals counsel minors being processed out of the system. Challenger Camp Satisfactory Well run facility with coordinated interagency staff. Kitchen run by contractors currently being Included: Camp Jarvis, remodeled. Nurses available 24/7. Camp McNair, [Camp MD on duty five days a week. Staff Onizuka-closed], Camp resides on site. Resnick, Camp Scobee, and Camp Smith Eastlake Detention Center Satisfactory Well maintained. Kitchen well organized. Repair tiles in medical building. Need new medical facility. Eastlake Juvenile Courts Satisfactory Well run. Need additional mental health court facilities. Eastlake Juvenile Facility. Satisfactory Overcrowded conditions. Edelman Children’s Court Satisfactory Very well kept facility. Holding cells for detained adults awaiting appearance in Children’s Court. Los Padrinos Juvenile Hall Satisfactory Well run facility with adequate medical staffing. Out of compliance with labeling and dating of medication. No crash cart or defibrillator. Currently undergoing defibrillator training. Sylmar Juvenile Satisfactory Clean facility serving males and Courts/Barry Nidorf females in separate quarters. No Juvenile Hall sprinklers in dorms. - 326 - 2007-2008 Los Angeles County Civil Grand Jury Final Report JAIL / DETENTION FACILITY RECOMMENDATIONS Recommendation 1: The Sheriff’s Department, Probation Department and police agencies should utilize non-sworn personnel to perform clerical and routine duties. Recommendation 2: Crescenta Valley LASD, Glendale Courthouse, Lakewood LASD, Lennox LASD. There is a need to construct secure facilities to transport inmates to or from buses to holding areas in order to protect staff, inmates and the public. Recommendation 3: All LASD and LAPD detention facilities should be well lit. Recommendation 4: Pasadena and Glendale Courthouses with LASD holding facilities need earthquake repair and retrofitting. Recommendation 5: LASD and LAPD policy and procedure manuals need to be kept in a central location and reviewed annually and updated as necessary. These manuals should be available to the public on demand. Recommendation 6: It is strongly recommended that the number of deputies at the Compton Courthouse be increased and that an additional high security floor be added. Escorting inmates from detention to courtroom lock ups with too few escorts endangers the safety of the public, court employees and Sheriff’s deputies. Recommendation 7: Boxed / dry and refrigerated foods in LASD jails and detention facilities must observe first in first out rotation of products. Food containers must be labeled to indicate contents and expiration date. All food products must be disposed of by the expiration date. Recommendation 8: All medications in LASD jails and detention facilities must be adequately secured and dispensed only by licensed personnel or trained non-licensed personnel. Inmates receiving medication should be properly identified by wrist bands. - 327 - 2007-2008 Los Angeles County Civil Grand Jury Final Report Recommendation 9: An inspection by EPA and/or Cal OSHA to ensure staff safety and determine if the LAPD Northeast facility should remain in use. CAMP RECOMMENDATIONS Recommendation 1: Kitchen equipment should be repaired or replaced in most camps. Recommendation 2: All camps should be retrofitted with adequate fire suppression systems. Recommendation 3: Refurbish outdoor recreation areas in poor or unsafe condition so that intramural sports could be instituted at male and female camps. Recommendation 4: In lieu of Probation Officers, more Detention Service Officers should be hired to perform clerical and routine duties in camps. Recommendation 5: Maintenance concerns in Probation Camps should be performed in a more efficient and timely manner. Recommendation 6: All camps should have 12 hour licensed nursing coverage 7 days a week. Recommendation 7: Non-functioning generators should be repaired or replaced in a timely manner. Recommendation 8: All camp staff should have current CPR and First Aid certification. Recommendation 9: The gym at Camp Kilpatrick needs to be replaced. Recommendation 10: All medication must be adequately secured and dispensed only by licensed personnel or trained non-licensed personnel. Juveniles receiving medication should be properly identified by wrist bands. - 328 - 2007-2008 Los Angeles County Civil Grand Jury Final Report REPORT OF THE CONTINUITY COMMITTEE 2007-2008 Los Angeles County Civil Grand Jury Standing Committee Nicolina Friedman, Chair John Gleiter Lionel S. Martinez Ernest Oestreich - 329 - 2007-2008 Los Angeles County Civil Grand Jury Final Report - 330 - 2007-2008 Los Angeles County Civil Grand Jury Final Report REPORT OF THE CONTINUITY COMMITTEE INTRODUCTION The Continuity Committee is a standing committee which serves as a bridge between all Civil Grand Juries, prior, current and future. It is responsible for informing the current jury of investigations done by its predecessors and maintaining a record of those investigations as well as studies by other agencies i.e. the County Auditor/Controller. It reinforces the role of the Civil Grand Jury by ensuring that last year’s recommendations made to governmental entities are responded to properly. To fulfill its responsibility, the 2007-2008 Continuity Committee reviewed prior reports, looked at areas of duplication, reviewed responses to recommendations, communicated with non-responders, and updated the summary of investigations. The committee also maintained a list of topics with background materials that represented issues of interest to the current jury but were not investigated due to budget and time constraints. This list will be passed on to the foreperson of the 2008-2009 Civil Grand Jury for possible consideration. METHOD According to the Penal Code 933 (c), the Civil Grand Jury may investigate and make findings and recommendations to Los Angeles County governing bodies, elective officers, or agency heads. The governing body of the public agency addressed shall comment to the presiding judge of the Superior Court on the findings and recommendations pertaining to matters under its control. Every elected county officer or agency head for which the grand jury has responsibility pursuant to Section 914.1 shall comment within 60 days to the presiding judge of the Superior Court. The code specifically states that elected county officers or agency heads must respond to the presiding judge within 60 days and governing bodies are required to respond within 90 days. Section 933.5 states: “a) For purposes of subdivision (b) of Section 933, as to each grand jury finding, the responding person or entity shall indicate one of the following: (1) The respondent agrees with the finding. (2) The respondent disagrees wholly or partially with the finding, in which case the response shall specify the portion of the finding that is - 331 - 2007-2008 Los Angeles County Civil Grand Jury Final Report disputed and shall include an explanation of the reasons therefore.” For each grand jury recommendation, the responding person or entity shall report one of the following actions: (1) “The recommendation has been implemented, with a summary regarding the implemented action. (2) “The recommendation has not yet been implemented, but will be implemented in the future, with a time frame for implementation. The recommendations require further analysis, with an explanation and the scope and parameters of an analysis or study, and a time frame from the matter to be prepared for discussion by the officer or head of the agency or department being investigated or reviewed, including the governing body of the public agency when applicable. This time frame shall not exceed six months from the date of publication of the grand jury report. (3) “The recommendation will not be implemented because it is not warranted or is not reasonable, with an explanation therefore.” Written responses to Civil Grand Jury Final Report recommendations should be sent to: Presiding Judge of the Los Angeles County Superior Court, 111 North Hill Street, Room 204 Los Angeles, California 90012 It is the responsibility of the Continuity Committee to follow up on all recommendations made to cities, county department heads, redevelopment agencies, and the Board of Supervisors. This means to verify that responses were received from the appropriate agencies in accord with the statutes. The process began as soon as the committee was established by identifying all recommendations made by the 2006- 2007 Civil Grand Jury. We developed methods for reporting the existence of all responses made to those recommendations. It is essential that the recommendations made by the jury be clear, concise, and have actual merit. It is also necessary that responses made to

Enhanced Emergency Shelter Program for TAY (EESP) $605,000 per year. This program provides temporary shelter for SED/SPMI TAY ages 18-25 in a supportive housing environment for up to 29 nights while pursuing the long-term goal of secure and permanent housing. Program offers semi-private rooms, hygiene facilities, hot meals, case management, referrals and linkage services to SED/SPMI TAY who have no other resources to pay for shelter. There is one shelter that is licensed (6-beds) to serve 16-17 years old. DMH TAY Division is working with DCFS Command Post Unit to develop protocols for access for DCFS clients.

Project-Based Operating Subsidies for Permanent Housing $390,000 per year. This program provides a unit-based housing subsidy (not an individual rental subsidy). This program is currently under development. When implemented it is estimated that approximately 83 units of affordable housing will be available to SED/SPMI TAY who are capable of living independently in the community in their own apartment/unit.

Housing Specialists, one per SPA, Total funding $575,000 per year. Housing specialists assist youth with finding, securing and retaining housing by providing individualized services including accompanying youth on housing search, advocating with landlord, and assistance completing application forms. Misc. Information: The EESP Program was approved by the Board of Supervisors on March 18, 2008. Services will be implemented beginning May 2008. The Project-Based Operating - 52 - 2007-2008 Los Angeles County Civil Grand Jury Final Report Subsidy Program will be implemented in FY 2008-09. Housing Specialists have been serving TAY since October 2006. Funding: Total MHSA funding (3 program total) $1,575,000 Target Population/Potential clientele: Youth ages 18-25 who have been diagnosed SED/SPMI and are homeless, in need of housing assistance, and can otherwise living independently in the community with supports and need minimal supervision. Program capacity: EESP Program can fund approximately 300 TAY for 20 days each per FY. Approximately 864 youth can be served by the 8 funded Housing Specialists. DMH’s goal is to provide operating subsidies for at approximately 83 housing units. Clients served: Not available. Evaluation Process: It is too early to determine success of program. 5.4) Probation-Camp Services Program Description: Multi-disciplinary staffs provide an array of services and medication. Misc. Information: This program started in November 2007. Funding: Note: these Navigators are funded under TAY navigators not camps. MHSA $3,500,000 Target Population/Potential clientele: SED/SPMI TAY incarcerated in Probation camps. Program capacity: 400+ Clients served: 100% (All that need to be served are being served.) Evaluation Process: This program has not yet been evaluated. 5.5) Juvenile Halls and Community-Based Juvenile Justice Programs Program Description: This program provides screening and assessment; consultation and education services; psychiatric evaluation and mental health treatment; crisis intervention; aftercare planning and linkage with community-based mental health providers. The Massachusetts Youth Screening Inventory (MAYSI-2) is used to screen all newly admitted youth. CARE and Enhanced Supervision Units provide enhanced services to multi-problem youth in the Juvenile Halls. Five TAY System Navigators work in the camps to provide transitional linkage to community mental health programs and supports in addition to FSP. Funding: The funding is from seven sources: Juvenile Justice Crime Prevention Act (JJCPA) or Schiff-Cardenas $5,032,000 and $606,000 for Multi-systemic Family Therapy (a community- base program), The Supportive Therapeutic Options Program (STOP) $2,100,000 plus a State required 30% County General Fund (CGF) ($900,000) match for a total program of $3,000,000, Department of Justice Settlement Agreement, CGF of $2,201,000, Mentally Ill Crime Reduction Grant (MICOR) funding for Camp Assessment Unit and clinical staff at Camp Rockey of $299,337, Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration (SAMHSA) funding of $956,673, CGF funding of $816,802 for Dorothy Kirby Day Treatment Intensive Residential Placement for Probation Youth, CGF funding of $300,000 for Functional Family Therapy (a community-based program) and CGF of $349,583. Target Population/Potential clientele: Children and youth residing in Juvenile Halls Program capacity: 100% of need Clients served: 100% screened and served as necessary Evaluation Process: The RAND Corporation provides a monitoring service. No report is available. - 53 - 2007-2008 Los Angeles County Civil Grand Jury Final Report 5.6) DMH TAY Navigators Program Description: Navigators are licensed/waiver clinical social workers who provide field- based outreach and engagement (O&E) services, linkage and referrals to not served, underserved SED/SPMI TAY. Navigators deliver O&E in the community to TAY through collaborations with an array of agencies and organizations including jails, probation camps, juvenile halls, Independent Living Programs, schools, health centers, faith-based organizations, ethnic communities, etc. Their primary function is to link TAY to mental health services and supports (including treatment, housing, benefits establishments, and other resources) Misc. Information: TAY Navigators have been delivering services since September 2006 Funding: MHSA $2,000,000 (pays for 20 staff) Target Population/Potential clientele: TAY ages 16-25. Program capacity: 1000+ Clients served: Not available. Evaluation Process: Data collected to be compiled 5.7) General Out-Patient Services Program Description: This program provides mental health screenings, assessments, and development of individualized and specialized mental health services tailored to each youth’s needs. Co-located staffs provide crisis intervention and short-term treatment as needed. Both DMH and contracted staff provide services. Funding: EPSDT (Early Periodic Screening Diagnosis and Treatment) funds are paid through Medi-Cal. $46,860,172 Target Population/Potential clientele: DCFS youth age 16-20 (not all youth necessarily aging out) Program capacity: All needing services are served Clients served: 4,751 clients were served in the 2006-07 fiscal year Evaluation Process: Not available The table outlines funding for the seven programs above, currently or about to be provided by DMH to TAY. Many of these services are new and data on clientele served or evaluation processes are limited. Programs 1, 2, 3 and 7 are primarily focused on TAY who are not in the system. Programs 4, 5, and 6 are services to TAY in the system. The overall funding for these programs is: Source Pre-emancipation Post Emancipation TOTAL DOJ $2,201,000 $2,201,000 MHSA $3,500,000 (1) $7,900,000 (2) $15,475,000 $500,000 (3) $1,575,000 (4) $2,000,000 (5) Schiff- $5,032,000 $606,000 (6) $5,638,000 Cardenas/JJCPA STOP $2,100,000 $2,100,000 County $900,000 (7) $2,366,385 $349,583 (8) $816,802 (9) - 54 - 2007-2008 Los Angeles County Civil Grand Jury Final Report Source Pre-emancipation Post Emancipation TOTAL $300,000 (10) EPSDT $46,860,172 $46,860,172 MICOR $299,337 $299,337 SAMHSA $956,673 $956,673 $63,315,567 $12,581,000 $75,896,567 TOTAL (1) Probation Camp Services (2) Full Service Partnerships (3) Drop-In Centers (4) Housing Services (5) System Navigators (6) Multi-systemic Family Therapy (Juvenile Justice Community-Based Program) (7) CGF Match for STOP (8) CGF for Juvenile Justice (9) CGF for Dorothy Kirby Center (10) Functional Family Therapy (Juvenile Justice Community-Based Program) APPENDIX D: DCFS/Probation TAY Programs 6.1) Chafee Foster Care Independence Program Program description: Los Angeles County provides a broad array of activities to help youth prepare for and make the successful transition from adolescence to adulthood. The following are typical services provided directly by DCFS/Probation:

Education-related costs, including: tuition, books, supplies, and clothing

Work-related costs including: clothing, tools, professional/union dues, and costs incurred due to the job interview process

Payment for transportation costs (including parking) related to job search, work or school (public or private)

Computer classes, mentoring and youth conferences

Reimbursement for health services costs (physical and/or mental) that are not funded by Medi-Cal and beyond the financial means of the youth. Included are costs for classes or services related to parenting skills, nutrition, drug/alcohol use, etc.

Scholarships and participation in youth events (Celebration I, II and Success is Our Future)

www.ilponline.org provides information on DCFS resources. Funding: Chafee/ILP $1,354,280 - 55 - 2007-2008 Los Angeles County Civil Grand Jury Final Report Target Population/Potential clientele: Youth ages 18-20 who have exited DCFS/Probation care estimated to be approximately13,225 youth. Program capacity: Current funding provides services to 4,886 youth. Clients served: 1,330 are attending college. 1,339 are employed full/part-time. Evaluation Process: Current funding limits provide service to about 1/3 of the estimated youth in this category. Federal regulations are scheduled to go into effect in April 2010. The departments will implement the program performance measures required. 6.2) Chafee Foster Care Independence Program – High School Graduation Expenses Program Description: This program is provided directly by DCFS/Probation. It covers some of the senior year high school year-end costs such as: high school yearbook, senior pictures, prom expenses, class ring, etc. This service is provided to youth who request it or who are referred by the DCFS or Probation case workers. Funding: Chafee/ILP $320,000 Target Population/Potential clientele: There are approximately 3,698 potential graduates per year (Youth aged 17-19 in foster care). Program capacity: 640 ($320,000/$500per youth) Clients served: 908 received high school graduation expenses. DCFS/Probation meets all requests by reallocating funding from other line items. Evaluation Process: Requests are confirmed with the high school records and the youth is required, as it is difficult to collect receipts after funds have been provided to supply receipts for all expenses. 6.3) Special Tutoring for ILP Youth (Age 14-15) Program Description: This is a unique program to Los Angeles County to address educational deficiencies in particular courses for these youth. Contract staff provides educational assessments for 2,252 youth and refer those youth who meet specific criteria to tutoring services. The youth may receive the WRAT-R (Wide Range Achievement Test-Revised) or Houghton, Mifflin and Kaplan test. Funding: The County provides $1,415,635 for this program. Target Population/Potential clientele: Youth aged 14-15 in DCFS foster care or Probation. There are 5,186 potential clientele age 14-15 Program capacity: Current funding provides for 2,252 assessments and tutoring for 452 youth. Evaluation Process: The contract requires the contractor to a) undertake pre/post testing of the youth receiving this service and b) provide a list of all youth tested and receiving tutoring. 6.4) Youth Development Services (Age 16-20) Program Description: Life Skills and Employability Classes are provided by contractors. They include a broad range of services and information in seven modules: Education, Employment, Daily Living Skills, Survival Skills, Choices & Consequences, Interpersonal Social Skills, and Computer and Internet Skills.

Education, including, but not limited to: skill development, assistance and referrals to obtain literacy skills, high school diploma/GED, post-secondary education experiential learning and computer skills;

Career development, including, but not limited to: assistance and referral to obtain career exploration, work readiness and responsibility skills, employment development, employment experience, vocational training, apprenticeship opportunities, job placement and retention; - 56 - 2007-2008 Los Angeles County Civil Grand Jury Final Report

Assistance and referral to promote health (including mental health) and safety skills including, but not limited to: substance abuse prevention, smoking cessation, pregnancy prevention, parenting, and nutrition education;

Referral to available mentors and/or mentoring programs;

Daily living skills, including, but not limited to: information on and experiences and training in financial management and budgeting; credit and identity theft information; personal responsibility skills; self-advocacy; household management; consumer and resource use; survival skills; computer and internet skills; and obtaining vital records;

Financial resources (Financial Aid Workshops), including, but not limited to: information and referrals regarding financial assistance if applicable, including, but not limited to, incentives, stipends, savings and trust fund accounts, educational/vocational grants, CAL-Grants, Employment Development Departments, registered in One-Stop Career Centers, Workforce Investment Act funding and programs, other employment programs and other forms of public assistance including, but not limited to, CalWORKs, Food Stamps, and Medi-Cal; and

Housing information, including, but not limited to: training and referrals about transitional housing programs; federal, state and local housing programs; and landlord/tenant issues. Funding: Chafee/ILP $2,360,877 Target Population/Potential clientele: Program targets youth ages 16-20 in DCFS foster care or Probation. DCFS/Probation 25,432 youth age 16 – 20 both in and out of the system. Program capacity: The current funding allows the contractor to serve 1489 youth. Clients served: 1489 youth were served. Evaluation Process: DCFS’ Youth Development Services contractors began to collect Ansel Casey data in FY 2007-08. The evaluation is pending. 6.5) Foster Youth Demonstration Project Program Description: This program is provided directly to DCFS and Probation youth. It is designed to prepare youth for employment and provides assessments, measuring educational and occupational skills as well as assisting the youth with employment and career goals. Funding: Chafee/ILP $200,000; Department of Labor $400,000; Peyser & Wagner $200,000 Target Population/Potential clientele: The program is targeted to youth aged 17-21 exiting care or have exited DCFS and Probation foster care. The program is currently limited to youth in SPA 3 (17%) and 6 (24%). SPAs 3 and 6 make-up 41% of ILP eligible youth, which is approximately 10,427 youth. Program capacity: Current funding provides for 100 to receive this service. Clients served: .9 % of the youth in these SPAs are being served by this program. Evaluation Process: Casey Family Services is funding the program evaluation of this demonstration project. The evaluation is underway. 6.6) Alternative Services for Youth Program (Age 14 – 18) Program Description: A contractor provides mentoring, life skills workshops, tutoring, GED prep, California high school exit exam prep, field services and home visits to DCFS youth who are not eligible for comparable ILP services. Funding: Los Angeles County $1,500,000 Target Population/Potential clientele: Estimated potential clientele is 7,748 youth Program capacity: Current funding provides service to 640 youth - 57 - 2007-2008 Los Angeles County Civil Grand Jury Final Report Clients served: 286 youth are currently being served Evaluation Process: This is the start up year. The program is subject to performance based criteria. The evaluation is pending. 6.7) Runaway Outreach Unit (ROU) - DCFS Program Description: This program is designed to locate and stabilize runaway DCFS youth. ROU assists CSWs in providing stabilization services to AWOL youth who are returned to DCSF care. The program is designed to assist all DCFS runaways in returning to, stabilizing in and lowering the recidivism rate of each runaway episode. Funding: Child Welfare Service (Case Management System) $800,000 Target Population/Potential clientele: Countywide protective services to youth ages 10–17 under Court Jurisdiction who AWOL from care and appear on the monthly Abducted Runaway Kids System. Program capacity: 100% of AWOL youth Clients served: Last year 847 youth were AWOL of which 455 were found and returned to foster care. Evaluation Process: An evaluation in partnership with National Runaway Switchboard (Chicago) is pending. 6.8) ILP Rental Assistance/ILP Direct Services Program Description: This program is designed to provide youth with the opportunity to obtain/maintain existing permanent housing, with the goal of preventing homelessness and stabilizing the youth's housing needs. Youth are encouraged to maintain employment, and/or attend school while participating in the program. Funding: ILP/Chafee $765,000 Target Population/Potential clientele: DCFS/Probation youth, aged 18-20 who have exited care. The potential clientele is estimated to be 13,225. Program capacity: Last fiscal year’s (2006-07) funding provided service to 485 youth. Clients served: 485 are currently being served. Evaluation Process: There is no evaluation process in place. 6.9) Transitional Housing Placement Program (THPP) Program Description: This placement alternative provides training, support, education and basic life skills to youth in foster care. The program contractor provides paid, furnished apartments and includes allowances for food, clothing and personal expenses. It also includes housing assistance for youth after exiting care. The youth must be on target for high school graduation, doing well in school and current placement and responsible enough to share an apartment with a roommate. Funding: This is a special Federal/State program of $2,108,000 Target Population/Potential clientele: Program targets successful foster youth. Potential clientele includes all 11,727 foster youth ages 16-18. Program capacity: Current funding provides services to 120 youth per year Evaluation Process: THP is evaluated annually via Supportive Housing Program (SHP) grant renewals via HUD and Los Angeles Homeless Services Authority (LAHSA) 6.10) Transitional Housing Program (THP) Program Description: This program is designed to provide youth with the opportunity to live in supervised ‘permanent’ housing, with the goal of learning the skills to live independently upon - 58 - 2007-2008 Los Angeles County Civil Grand Jury Final Report completion of the program. The youth are encouraged to maintain employment, and/or attend school while participating in the program. The program also provides a "forced savings" whereby 50% of the youth's employment income is saved in an interest bearing account that is returned to the youth, in full, upon exiting the program. Youth can stay in the program for a maximum of 18 months. Services provided by this program while youth are under the supervision of a social worker include: furnished apartment with paid utilities, food stipend, educational and career guidance, bus passes, and life skills classes. Funding: ILP/Chafee - $3,700,000; HUD - $2,300,000 Target Population/Potential clientele: DCFS/Probation youth, aged 18-21 who have exited care. The potential clientele is estimated to be 13,225 Program capacity: Current funding provides services for 244 youth. Clients served: 298 youth were served and 85 youth who completed the program received permanent housing. Evaluation Process: THP is evaluated annually via Supportive Housing Program (SHP) grant renewals via HUD and Los Angeles Homeless Services Authority (LAHSA) 6.11) Transitional Housing Program – Plus (THP+) Program Description: This program is designed to provide housing for youth who are at risk for homelessness, who have had a history of multiple placements, substance abuse, no GED or diploma, are pregnant or parenting and/or have had engagement with the Juvenile Justice system. The contractor provided services include: furnished housing, food stipends, bus passes, and educational and employment assistance. A maximum of 24 cumulative months can be spent in the program. Funding: Special State funding of $1,200,000 Target Population/Potential clientele: DCFS/Probation youth, aged 18-23 who have exited care. The estimated requirement is for 800 beds. Program capacity: Current funding provides 48 beds per fiscal year. Clients served: The program is running at 100% of capacity. Evaluation Process: This is the first year of this program. The evaluation is built into the contract and is pending. 6.12) Homeless Prevention Initiative - DCFS Program Description: This program provides rental subsidies, utility connection fees and furniture for former foster youth age 18-25. Funding: County $1,750,000 for three years ($583,333 per year) Target Population/Potential clientele: 42,386 former foster youth ages 18-25; youth who left care. Program capacity: 100 per year Clients served: The program is operating at 100% capacity. Evaluation Process: The youth are surveyed to determine if they have stable housing. 6.13) Homeless Prevention Initiative - Probation Program Description: This program provides rental subsidies, utility connection fees and furniture for Probation youth age 21-25. Rental subsidies are limited to ILP youth age 18-21. Probation Direct Services - 59 - 2007-2008 Los Angeles County Civil Grand Jury Final Report Funding: County $1,750,000 for three years ($583,333 per year) Target Population/Potential clientele: 5000 former foster youth age 18-25. Program capacity: 100 per year Clients served: The program is operating at 100% capacity. From September to December 2007 108 youth participated Evaluation Process: The youth are surveyed to determine if they have stable housing. Of the 108 youth surveyed only 7 stated they had challenges with housing stability. Addition services are also provided to youth, including foster youth, by the City of Los Angeles Work Investment Agency (WIA) (educational and occupational skills assessment, training and career guidance - age limit is 14 to 21); LA County WIA (paid and unpaid work experience - age limit is 14 to 21); Employment Development Department (basic skills assessment, tutoring, mentoring, paid and unpaid work experience, and occupational skills training - age limit is 14 to 21); DPSS CAL-Learn (assessment of basic needs, vocational, and educational skills; educational/vocational preparation – age limit is 14-18 or 19 if in high school); GAIN (Greater Avenues for Independence) – CalWorks (assessment of basic needs, vocational, and educational skills; educational, vocational, and employment training leading to self-sufficiency – limited to emancipated parenting youth who have completed high school or GED program); ROP (Regional Occupational Program) Los Angeles County Office of Education (a combination of school and on-the-job training for both high school students and adults – must be 16 and a junior in high school). These programs are not integrated with those provided to TAY by DCFS and Probation. The departments indicated that part of the problem of integration is the confidentiality criteria of each organizational entity. From a County perspective a far more detailed study is needed to understand the level of under (or perhaps even over) service to these various subpopulations of TAY. Program Federal State County Private Total Chafee $5,000,157 $5,000,157 Dept of Labor $400,000 $200,000 $600,000 Foster Youth Grant Alternative $1,500,000 $1,500,000 Services for Youth Contract Transitional $2,300,000 $6,000,000 Housing (HUD) Program $3,700,000 Homeless $3,500,000 Prevention Over 3 years Initiative Or $1,166,000 (DCFS & $1,166,000/yr Probation) - 60 - 2007-2008 Los Angeles County Civil Grand Jury Final Report Program Federal State County Private Total Transitional $1,200,000 $1,200,000 Housing Plus Transitional $1,054,000 $1,054,000 $2,108,000 Housing Placement Program Youth $1,415,635 $1,415,635 Development Services Runaway $672,000 $128,000 $800,000 Outreach Unit Total $13,126,157 $2,382,000 $4,081,635 $200,000 $19,789,792 APPENDIX E: DCFS Youth Ombudsman Office Annual Report 2007 Summary Ombudsman Services include, but are not limited to:

Listening to and investigating complaints from youth

Assisting youth in understanding rights and responsibilities

Tracking ILP service delivery

Mediating through conflict resolution

Facilitating focus groups of youth on how to improve system

Organizing Celebration II and Annual Holiday Party The following table shows the complaint volume from youth for 2007. DCFS Probation Total Pre-emancipated youth 53 16 69 Emancipated youth 156 11 167 Total 209 27 236 The following table illustrates the types of complaints coming in from youth. Type Number of Complaints Transportation 13 Transition worker 9 Counseling/Mental Health 2 Documentation 13 Medical 3 - 61 - 2007-2008 Los Angeles County Civil Grand Jury Final Report Type Number of Complaints ILP/Life Skills classes 10 Job Assistance 8 ILP Request for funds or update/ILP eligibility 35 Events 4 Housing concern 99 Housing Appeals 4 Graduation Expenses 6 School assistance 38 - 62 - 2007-2008 Los Angeles County Civil Grand Jury Final Report IN-HOME SUPPORTIVE SERVICES FRAUD: PROBLEMS AND OPPORTUNITIES 2007-2008 Los Angeles County Civil Grand Jury Investigative Committee John Gleiter, Chair Nicolina Friedman Lionel S. Martinez Dorothy M. Schneider - 63 - 2007-2008 Los Angeles County Civil Grand Jury Final Report - 64 - 2007-2008 Los Angeles County Civil Grand Jury Final Report IN-HOME SUPPORTIVE SERVICES FRAUD: PROBLEMS AND OPPORTUNITIES INTRODUCTION In Home Supportive Services (IHSS) is a well-intentioned aid program for eligible aged, blind or otherwise disabled persons who are in need of personal care and domestic services in their homes, are unable to perform such services for themselves, and cannot safely remain in their homes if such services are not provided. A majority of IHSS referrals are currently received from doctors and hospitals. The IHSS program in L.A. County, which has grown from approximately 83,000 recipients in 1997 to almost 160,000 in 2007, is administered by the Los Angeles County Department of Public Social Services (DPSS). The maximum allotted time for IHSS recipients is 283 hours per month, and caregivers are paid a flat rate of $9 per hour. The current state budget of $1,600,000,000 is increasing at the rate of approximately 9 % per year. IHSS, as another entitlement program, has fallen victim to the usual abuses. It has grown rapidly, now expending approximately $400 million per year (CY 2008) in Los Angeles County alone. IHSS is also complemented by the federal Medical, Supplemental Security Disability Insurance, Supplemental Security Income (SSI), and the In-Home Supportive Services programs under the Older Americans Act, as well as California’s Department of Aging Community-Based Services programs. In a review of written materials, and in interviews with county personnel, an undertone exists regarding state and federal monies; to wit, state and federal monies are considered “free goods,” because they are not part of the county’s budget. Although a desire to help may be admirable, the careless dispensing of such funds violates the legislated rules, administrative guidelines and the basic standards of professionalism. Also, there is an aversion to “complaints,” be they from potential or actual recipients, professional welfare advocates and/or legislators. The Los Angeles County District Attorney has identified recurring fraudulent schemes, which, if properly exposed and addressed by DPSS, could result in substantial savings of taxpayer dollars. The purpose of the Grand Jury’s study is to highlight the most prevalent forms of fraud in the IHSS program, and recommend possible solutions. - 65 - 2007-2008 Los Angeles County Civil Grand Jury Final Report SUMMARY The In-Home Supportive Services (IHSS) program is based on trust; trust that the provider will provide some semblance of quality services to the recipient and that the recipient is truly in medical and financial need. The third party to this social contract is the “state,” here referring to all levels of government. Whether supportive services are actually delivered to a person who is truly needy is difficult to assess after intake to the program, without frequent monitoring. This report has no recommendation in this area; the recipient and his or her social worker are the arbiters in this matter. This report does, however, make recommendations which could lead to better management of the IHSS program, particularly geared to the reduction of fraud (intentional perversion of truth in order to induce another to part with something of value; the act of deceiving or deliberately misrepresenting). These recommendations deal with such topics as:

communication with the Social Security Administration regarding SSI

handling of timesheets or time cards

realistic assessment of need and related medical evaluations

unambiguous recipient and provider identification

inter-communication ability of county, state and federal computer databases

periodic reassessments of the recipient’s actual needs

alternatives to personalized, in-home care

attitudes and morale of Department of Social Services personnel

criminal background checks of recipients and providers

providers not being paid by recipients

lack of action or feedback on fraud referrals

non-obvious financial resources of the recipient, such as Affidavits of Support and Earned Income Tax Credit

termination of state payments upon non-receipt of valid timesheets. These recommendations, if implemented by the Department of Social Services, will help to identify and eliminate abuses of the program. Truly needy recipients and competent providers will presumably welcome the recommendations, since none would add any new burdens (e.g., additional paperwork) to the process. A fingerprint on a timesheet or time card is as easy to accomplish as a signature, perhaps even easier for a handicapped person. - 66 - 2007-2008 Los Angeles County Civil Grand Jury Final Report